Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: On receipt of a not-so-nastygram

69 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last

  • John Fouhy,

    There's a page here that may be of use: http://wlug.org.nz/NewZealandInternetHistory

    You could also try contacting John Hine at VUW, since he's apparently been around from the beginning.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 87 posts Report Reply

  • Michael Robinson,

    The key event in the NewZealandInternetHistory is in 1987; the adoption of the Janet Gray Book protocols.

    More information on the Gray Book naming scheme is available on Wikipedia.

    Wellington • Since Apr 2007 • 8 posts Report Reply

  • Riddley Walker,

    well i'm no legal expert but i would've thought in these situations it'd be better PR for corporations in this situation to feign a sense of humour and let it be. Haggit can be commended at least for taking a non-aggressive tone.

    AKL • Since Feb 2007 • 890 posts Report Reply

  • nic.wise,

    On the AirNZ thing - I wonder if she's sent this to Google, too, cos I have their GrabASeat RSS feed in google reader, and I'm SURE thats (C) AirNZ....

    <sigh>. Welcome to the 1990's

    :)

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 83 posts Report Reply

  • Che Tibby,

    ...must.... rrrrresist anality..... loosing... battle...

    we use ".govt", oztraylia uses ".gov"

    and, i would addressed my email to air new zealand, "dear andrea, how about we spend your salary providing decent customer service..."

    the back of an envelope • Since Nov 2006 • 2026 posts Report Reply

  • TracyMac,

    Also with regard to the "copyright infringement", the lawyer says herself it's a parody. While NZ copyright law doesn't explicitly permit use of copyright works for the purposes of satire (as the US law does), I believe it's generally assumed to be part of the common law right of "fair dealing". As you say, there is no attempt to pass off the work as the original creator's, and there is no commercial gain for the deriviative work's creator (although I don't think we have a concept of "derivative work" in NZ law), nor is there any commercial penalty for the copyright holder.

    I mean, really, why bother? And the thing about not even realising that YouTube is hosting the content is just bizarre.

    Canberra, West Island • Since Nov 2006 • 487 posts Report Reply

  • Steven Price,

    Be warned: parody is not a clear-cut defence to infringement of copyright in NZ. It's certainly arguable in many circumstances, but it's not entirely clear what the courts will make of it.

    I can't see a mere link being an infringement of copyright. But almost every day I see big chunks of text being quoted by bloggers which probably exceed the width of the fair use defences.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 22 posts Report Reply

  • Robyn Gallagher,

    Interestingly, in the UK, the government 2LD used to be .govt.uk, but a few years ago they changed it to .gov.uk.

    I assume the reason for this is that it's bloody difficult to say "govt" aloud, something that probably wasn't considered back in the '80s.

    Raglan • Since Nov 2006 • 1861 posts Report Reply

  • Riddley Walker,

    GOVT. you're right. it's easier to say theatre

    AKL • Since Feb 2007 • 890 posts Report Reply

  • 3410,

    Auckland • Since Jan 2007 • 2618 posts Report Reply

  • Rachel,

    Its not directly relevant to this case, but if you're publishing links to other websites in your own website, my understanding was that you can only link to the home page of other websites, as linking to specific pages/sections/items within the website does breach copyright unless you have obtained permission. Obviously, youtube, etc, has a different commercial imperative, but there are number of jurisdictions where I thought this applied (even NZ?).

    Sandringham • Since Apr 2007 • 6 posts Report Reply

  • Rachel,

    "Can only"... should have said thats if you're worried about copyright, or being audited, etc

    Sandringham • Since Apr 2007 • 6 posts Report Reply

  • Span .,

    But almost every day I see big chunks of text being quoted by bloggers which probably exceed the width of the fair use defences.

    I've often wondered about this, thanks for that clarification Steven. I don't mind so much if someone quotes my stuff, as long as they link to the original. What really really bugs me is when someone rips off something you have written and even acknowledges that you wrote it, but then doesn't provide any link whatsoever. But then I'm not paid for my words or the time spent writing them, so I imagine I might feel differently even about the quoting if I were?

    Auckland, NZ • Since Nov 2006 • 112 posts Report Reply

  • Juha Saarinen,

    I would prefer .guv actually.

    Since Nov 2006 • 524 posts Report Reply

  • Chris Chambers,

    It is an interesting quirk the govt vs gov and ac vs edu isn't it? If the alternative nomenclature is not being used why for the sake of a moving a few extra 1s and 0s in the background don't both simply work?

    I mean the computing power we had today with 3D games crunching in a second more maths than an average human would do in a lifetime yet the simple use of an alias is beyond the set up and use of basic everyday addressing. Why is there still a mindset in the techo world that you should know. "Ah yes you should be using govt not gov..."

    The same is true for phone numbers, you call another country using digital technology and YOU have to remember to drop the 0 at the beginning of the local area code. This is obviously beyond the computing power of the telco switches. Why can't they simply see that the person dialled a 0 after the county code so lets ignore that.

    Since the beginning of post (now called snail mail) there have been stories of cryptically address letters getting to the right person but not so with modern computing. So for now we have to remember govt, ac, co. Silly isn't it?

    Devonport • Since Nov 2006 • 6 posts Report Reply

  • Rachel,

    That tickles: the power of the postie

    Sandringham • Since Apr 2007 • 6 posts Report Reply

  • Nobody Important,

    It seems they haven't grasped the difference between me hosting content and me linking to content...

    Of course they grasped the difference, they're not stupid. They just wanted to see how stupid you were ie can you be intimidated by their 'threat' of action. Yay you for not buckling immediately. Lawyers know that some people will wet their pants upon reciept of an embossed letterhead.

    Re the .gov vs .govt etc question -- okay, this is tangential but not completely off-topic -- I think the international internet community missed a huge chance when they didn't take the opportunity to move all sex sites off www. and onto xxx.

    Pornographers argued they were a 'legal' enterprise with zillions of consumers (no argument there) but moving them to xxx. would not have stopped them trading surely? It certainly would have made it easier for parents/schools to block -- not a bad thing surely?

    expat • Since Mar 2007 • 319 posts Report Reply

  • Emma Hart,

    Pornographers argued they were a 'legal' enterprise with zillions of consumers (no argument there) but moving them to xxx. would not have stopped them trading surely? It certainly would have made it easier for parents/schools to block -- not a bad thing surely?

    The problem being finding a borderline for what's pornography and what isn't. Would you move erotic lit sites to xxx domains? And if not, then why erotic pic sites? And if not them... etc.

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 4369 posts Report Reply

  • reece palmer,

    As far as the link thing is concerned, you could say thats the way the cookie crumbles, but that would be a nasty pun.

    So just tell them to go jump...

    the terraces • Since Nov 2006 • 298 posts Report Reply

  • Nobody Important,

    Would you move erotic lit sites to xxx domains? And if not, then why erotic pic

    Damn straight I'd move 'em! I think the line is easily drawn: would you want a 10 year old child to access this site? I've no problem with Erotic Lit but I wouldn't leave hard copies (paperback!) lying around for children to read so why should the internet be any different?

    How is an Erotic Lit site disadvantaged by having a xxx. domain? If you're adult enough to seek out Erotic Lit then a xxx. shouldn't dissuade you (unless Mummy has blocked access to xxx).

    expat • Since Mar 2007 • 319 posts Report Reply

  • Emma Hart,

    Because, oddly, people who work in erotic lit don't want to be associated with hard-core pornography. They find it repulsive.

    Also. The site I work on has ONE section devoted to Erotica. This section is security-protected and only accessible to paying users over eighteen. We have other sections devoted to other kinds of writing, which are more open, and accept members over thirteen. Should that confine us to what would be widely viewed as a pr0n ghetto?

    Frankly, if you took everything off the www net that I wasn't happy with my ten year old viewing, there'd be feck all left. And I'm not as conservative as a lot of people - some of whom don't want their children viewing anything that normalises homosexuality, even if it's not at all explicit. I was asked to move a picture of two men kissing, even though they were fully dressed, from an M-rated forum.

    I wouldn't leave hard copies (paperback!) lying around for children to read so why should the internet be any different?

    But would you ask for them to all be removed from every library and put in a special pron-only library so kiddies couldn't touch them?

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 4369 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    But would you ask for them to all be removed from every library and put in a special pron-only library so kiddies couldn't touch them?

    A porn-only library. Can't see that getting through a city council budget meeting ;)

    Since Nov 2006 • 6204 posts Report Reply

  • Nobody Important,

    ME: I wouldn't leave hard copies (paperback!) lying around for children to read so why should the internet be any different?

    EMMA: But would you ask for them to all be removed from every library and put in a special porn-only library so kiddies couldn't touch them?

    Last time I looked, the Kiddies section and the Erotic Lit sections were in two different parts of the library. If we're happy to have those sections seperated in our libraries, why not the internet?

    Your argument is rejected.

    expat • Since Mar 2007 • 319 posts Report Reply

  • Rich of Observationz,

    You could have a number of different porn domains:

    .x
    .xx
    .xxx
    .xxx_but_ugly_chicks
    .xxx_gay_blokes
    .xxx_but_arguably_arty
    .xxxx_frankly_puke_inducing

    etc..

    Seriously I don't quite understand how Germany (90 mln people) manages with a single level .de but we need multi level domains for 4 million?

    Back in Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 4463 posts Report Reply

  • David Hamilton,

    Your argument is rejected.

    If you talk about the library as being a metaphor for a site it still holds. The very fact that it has erotic fiction would turn it into a pron library, despite the fact that a kid could walk in, grab a tintin book and walk out without ever being exposed (or allowed into) the erotic room.

    .xxx is an nice, optimistic idea but its so very blanket. Also, what about the fact that pron is not the only objectionable content? Do violence, bad language and so on also deserve their own easily blockable domain suffix?

    Hamiltron • Since Nov 2006 • 111 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.